Enbridge & Churchill Falls

[punked]

There's also talk that the power could be used in Atlantic Canada. I'm not sure what evidence the opposition have of their being no market in the US. The NDP and Liberals want natural gas explored as a power option for us, as well as wind, and say that the US can use natural gas which will be cheaper for them.

Yah Nat gas is super cheep but that just means what? You build the Dame in 30 years when the nat gas runs out? Then all that does is take away 30 years of power you could have been using. If you are going to end up building it any way then the sooner the better. Heck use all the energy in your province, make power super cheap and get manufacturing that is the leaving the country due to high power costs. If you are going to end up building there is no reason not to do now. Interest rates are lower and the Feds are giving you a loan guarantee so go for it.

Edited August 17, 2012 by punked

[Newfoundlander]

Yah Nat gas is super cheep but that just means what? You build the Dame in 30 years when the nat gas runs out? Then all that does is take away 30 years of power you could have been using. If you are going to end up building it any way then the sooner the better. Heck use all the energy in your province, make power super cheap and get manufacturing that is the leaving the country due to high power costs. If you are going to end up building there is no reason not to do now. Interest rates are lower and the Feds are giving you a loan guarantee so go for it.

That's the Progressive Conservative message.

[punked]

That's the Progressive Conservative message.

It makes sense though when you think about it. It really is an investment it could take 30-40 years for the project to break even but then after that it is all gravy for the next generation. This is why Hydro all over Canada is doing amazing now because it broke even in the late 90s now its all golden. That stuff takes time though.

[Newfoundlander]

It makes sense though when you think about it. It really is an investment it could take 30-40 years for the project to break even but then after that it is all gravy for the next generation. This is why Hydro all over Canada is doing amazing now because it broke even in the late 90s now its all golden. That stuff takes time though.

And as you said interest rates are now low that it makes it a lot more affordable.

[punked]

And as you said interest rates are now low that it makes it a lot more affordable.

It just seems like a good idea to me. It sucks you guys can't pipe it through Quebec though.

[Wild Bill]

I agree with that to but population is expanding as well so these two things are a trade off. Not to mention today I use a computer, a table, a TV, a cell phone, my ipod, etc etc etc. They might use less power but there is a whole hell of a lot more of them. So I would not agree with you on this one.

Punked, unless you are a techie most people have little to no idea about the power breakdown in their home. Some things are trivial and some haven't change much in years

The biggest user of electricity has to be an electric stove. When cooking supper it uses perhaps as much as a thousand CFLs! That's why forcing us to give up incandescent lamps always seemed to be a touchy feely smoke screen to me.

Next comes anything with a motor, such as a furnace, washing machine, refrigerator, dehumidifier and whatnot. perhaps as much as a few hundred or more CFLs.

Then comes lighting. Changing over all those old bulbs to CFLs saved maybe enough to buy a beer or two every month, if that.

Last comes all the standby power drains from tvs and such that are "instant on". Despite those outright lies implied on the OPG tv commercials, ALL of them in your house might add up to a couple of AA batteries worth!

The only place for any reduction is with the motors and the efficiency of refrigerators and clothes dryers. Add in the new DC motors with the new furnaces. That's it!

All this is just residential, of course, If you have a steel smelter or an aluminum manufacturer in town then you can pretty well ignore the power draw of the entire town population!

Power demand will only go up, not down. Not unless we all revert to a Little House on the Prairie lifestyle.

[punked]

Punked, unless you are a techie most people have little to no idea about the power breakdown in their home. Some things are trivial and some haven't change much in years

The biggest user of electricity has to be an electric stove. When cooking supper it uses perhaps as much as a thousand CFLs! That's why forcing us to give up incandescent lamps always seemed to be a touchy feely smoke screen to me.

Next comes anything with a motor, such as a furnace, washing machine, refrigerator, dehumidifier and whatnot. perhaps as much as a few hundred or more CFLs.

Then comes lighting. Changing over all those old bulbs to CFLs saved maybe enough to buy a beer or two every month, if that.

Last comes all the standby power drains from tvs and such that are "instant on". Despite those outright lies implied on the OPG tv commercials, ALL of them in your house might add up to a couple of AA batteries worth!

The only place for any reduction is with the motors and the efficiency of refrigerators and clothes dryers. Add in the new DC motors with the new furnaces. That's it!

All this is just residential, of course, If you have a steel smelter or an aluminum manufacturer in town then you can pretty well ignore the power draw of the entire town population!

Power demand will only go up, not down. Not unless we all revert to a Little House on the Prairie lifestyle.

WE AGREE ON ALL THIS!

I gave a very different reason why power us is going down in Canada.

[blueblood]

We can build the pipeline, and even manage any spills.

The question is who benefits from the oil sold to market: the owner of the oil, or the owner of the delivery to market.

That would depend on the intelligence of the owners of said oil and delivery system now would it.

If both have a brain in their head they both benefit.

We can look at it in terms of patented products. An inventor will get around 5-10 percent of a products revenue if he goes through the proper channels. How much does the salesman who sells said products to consumers get? The company that develops the product gets a healthy slice and rightfully so. So in that sense as far as delivery goes, the original terms were fair.

Without the people making products, the salesman has nothing to sell and therefore no job. Given the alternatives availible, salesmen aren't that expensive. Just like the pipelines and power cable. Once there are alternatives that delivery system becomes cheaper and cheaper. Had quebec played nice with the original deal with nfld, they would have a second set of power lines running thru the province. However since quebec politicians are socialist idiots, they've squandered yet another resource.

[Wild Bill]

WE AGREE ON ALL THIS!

I gave a very different reason why power us is going down in Canada.

Quite true, punked! Sorry, I just used your post out of convenience, for the sake of others.

Actually, the idea that we are using less because our industry is shutting down is pretty scary. I mentioned before I spent some time selling charity tickets to businesses at a call centre. You wouldn't believe how many plants were moving from Niagara Region over the border into upper New York.

They all said the same thing, Since McGuinty came to power the cost of electricity has tripled! To them, the electricity bill is a big deal to feed all their machines.

And the rate keeps going up!

[blueblood]

yes... yes Enbridge is well versed in spills! But, apparently, you're like most of the "champions" out there... you limit your skewed narrow view of the project to "pipeline" only... ever forgetting about that ocean thingee - those tankers. I suggest you fire up a googly and come back with results on ocean clean-up for a raw-bitumen spill. What's that... you can't find anything? What's that... you say there's no technical capabilities to actually clean-up the bitumen... that sinks to the ocean floor! No biggee, hey?

I'm quite content to simply quote your continued juvenile taunts - have at er!

It isn't a biggie, the western standard of living is well worth the risk of the once in a blue moon ship wreck. Why do you think china does those massive projects?

So here's the question again with worldwide energy consumption increasing by 2 percent per year how are you going to meet that goal without reducing living standards? I think we know your answer to that one, damn everyone else so waldos parents can live the high life so waldo can "educate" people on the internet that oil is the devil and shouldn't be developed.

As for my digs, here's an idea, how about smartening up the tone of your posts when you reply to people who disagree with you and then maybe I'll quit with the cheap shots. Its not nice when people have to deal with juvenile posts is it?

[punked]

Quite true, punked! Sorry, I just used your post out of convenience, for the sake of others.

Actually, the idea that we are using less because our industry is shutting down is pretty scary. I mentioned before I spent some time selling charity tickets to businesses at a call centre. You wouldn't believe how many plants were moving from Niagara Region over the border into upper New York.

They all said the same thing, Since McGuinty came to power the cost of electricity has tripled! To them, the electricity bill is a big deal to feed all their machines.

And the rate keeps going up!

It is a scary thought and speaks a lot to what Newfoundlander is saying. Why shouldn't Ontario be able to buy cheap power from Newfoundland? There needs to be some sort of national strategy we are a an energy rich countries who acts like we are an energy poor one. We aren't Germany, we have Hydro, we have nat gas, we have oil. However each province would rather screw their neighbor and sell the energy cheaper to the south then work with one another.

[waldo]

It isn't a biggie, the western standard of living is well worth the risk of the once in a blue moon ship wreck. Why do you think china does those massive projects?

So here's the question again with worldwide energy consumption increasing by 2 percent per year how are you going to meet that goal without reducing living standards? I think we know your answer to that one, damn everyone else so waldos parents can live the high life so waldo can "educate" people on the internet that oil is the devil and shouldn't be developed.

ya, clearly... your posts show a continued theme of total disregard for considerations of the environment, for sustainability, for emission reductions, for expanded emphasis on renewables... you're completely and totally all about Big Oil development - maximized development; the sooner the better, the bigger the better - full bore! Tell me, does your concern for your postulated worldwide reduced living standards extend to you supporting like emphasis on providing aid/assistance, including monetary assistance, to developing countries meeting the challenges of climate change - of mitigating, adapting and working to prevent climate change? Are you that guy? As for your ignorant strawman, I'll run you ragged quoting MLW posts where I speak directly to a continued, mapped, progressive... and diminishing reliance on fossil fuels. The problem with a progressive roadmap concept is you corporate Big Oil hucksters can't accept anything that works towards any kind of diminishing reliance on fossil fuels... can't accept anything that presumes to shift your hallowed status-quo! And meanwhile, climate change continues, essentially unabated... emissions continue to grow... extreme weather events magnify... the environment goes to, 'hell in a handbasket'!

and... again with your "waldo's parents" slag. You are nothing but consistent!

As for my digs, here's an idea, how about smartening up the tone of your posts when you reply to people who disagree with you and then maybe I'll quit with the cheap shots. Its not nice when people have to deal with juvenile posts is it?

I could care less if you continue your juvenile approach - I simply relish any/all opportunities to highlight... you have no game! In fact, keep it up - double down on it... ramp it up - sure you can!

[Wild Bill]

It is a scary thought and speaks a lot to what Newfoundlander is saying. Why shouldn't Ontario be able to buy cheap power from Newfoundland? There needs to be some sort of national strategy we are a an energy rich countries who acts like we are an energy poor one. We aren't Germany, we have Hydro, we have nat gas, we have oil. However each province would rather screw their neighbor and sell the energy cheaper to the south then work with one another.

Again, we agree! Still, it's not hard to see why there is so little sense of cooperation between provinces. At the outset, Canada was a Confederation of equal provinces. It wasn't long before history fostered a sense in us of unity and patriotism for our country as a whole. Two world wars were a big part of that. I was a child in the 50's and 60's and I still vividly remember how we thought of ourselves as Canadians first.

I hate to once again bring up the NEP but it is just too good an example of how things began to change. There was a new trend coming down from Ottawa that we were no longer a Confederation of equals but rather more of a federal state, of 10 provinces run by Ottawa. As time went on it became obvious that whichever party was in power in Ottawa didn't see this new power as something to be used for the overall good of Canada. Rather, it was something to use to play off different regions, favouring some at the expense of others to boost the electoral fortunes of the ruling party and keep them in power.

So now the provinces look at Ottawa as an adversary, someone who will not hesitate to screw them blind if it would mean buying votes somewhere else in the country. Why should a province make a small sacrifice for the good of Canada as a whole? Odds are it will never be reciprocated.

Nobody wants to belong to a club where your job is to pay dues so that the OTHER guys get to eat all the doughnuts!

Folks like us here on MLW may kill chickens and read the entrails so that we know that this perception is not totally true or fair but the average BC voter never knows or thinks much about the rest of the country. He's heard about terrible oil spills and might not be hurting for a job or paying his taxes. So his attitude is to just leave things the way they are and keep any pipeline out. Why should he care about the rest of the country?

Meanwhile, we all turn up our noses at the Americans for being too patriotic...

[blueblood]

ya, clearly... your posts show a continued theme of total disregard for considerations of the environment, for sustainability, for emission reductions, for expanded emphasis on renewables... you're completely and totally all about Big Oil development - maximized development; the sooner the better, the bigger the better - full bore! Tell me, does your concern for your postulated worldwide reduced living standards extend to you supporting like emphasis on providing aid/assistance, including monetary assistance, to developing countries meeting the challenges of climate change - of mitigating, adapting and working to prevent climate change? Are you that guy? As for your ignorant strawman, I'll run you ragged quoting MLW posts where I speak directly to a continued, mapped, progressive... and diminishing reliance on fossil fuels. The problem with a progressive roadmap concept is you corporate Big Oil hucksters can't accept anything that works towards any kind of diminishing reliance on fossil fuels... can't accept anything that presumes to shift your hallowed status-quo! And meanwhile, climate change continues, essentially unabated... emissions continue to grow... extreme weather events magnify... the environment goes to, 'hell in a handbasket'!

and... again with your "waldo's parents" slag. You are nothing but consistent!

I could care less if you continue your juvenile approach - I simply relish any/all opportunities to highlight... you have no game! In fact, keep it up - double down on it... ramp it up - sure you can!

What part of a 2 percent increase of worldwide energy consumption don't you understand? To take fossil fuels out of the equation no matter how slow means people being put in the poor house. Not only will fossil fuel production have to increase, but alternatives as well to fill in the demand. Unless you decide to dictate to countries with a population of more than 2 billion people they will have to go back to being poor because some elitists in the northern hemisphere who are already rich have a guilt complex. Japan entered world war 2 because of a lack of energy. What you propose is not only arrogant, but dangerous.

[TimG]

You could then take those dollars and give a tax break to manufacturers this helping with the dutch disease.

ROTFL.

Fact 1) You claimed that the loss of manufacturing is the reason for the decline in electricity usage. Since most people are still employed somewhere you can only be talking about the loss of energy intensive manufacturing.

Fact 2) Energy intensive manufacturers already have a HUGE incentive to reduce their energy use because energy use is a big part of their input costs. This means that it is impossible for any anti-CO2 policy to have any effect on energy use by these manufacturers. If an energy saving technology exists they have already deployed it.

Fact 3) The majority of any rebates by the government would not go to these manufacturers. The majority would go to various special interest groups (e.g. seniors, poor, whatever). The net result is a huge increase in costs for these manufacturers even after any hypothetical rebates.

Fact 4) You claimed that ~10% increase in costs due to a rising dollar resulted in the closing of these plants but you think that similar or larger increase in energy costs would have no effect. You are living in a fantasy land.

I stand by my statement: lefty environmentalists hate industry and will not be happy until all manufacturing is driven out of the country. The fact that they construct elaborate delusions designed to prevent them from seeing the consequences of their pet policies does not change anything.

If you disagree then answer this hypothetical: assume that everything I say is true and anti-CO2 policies will lead to the end of manufacturing in this country. Would you still support "action" or would acknowledge that there are things more important than hypothetical problems that might occur 100 years from now?

[blueblood]

ROTFL.

Fact 1) You claimed that the loss of manufacturing is the reason for the decline in electricity usage. Since most people are still employed somewhere you can only be talking about the loss of energy intensive manufacturing.

Fact 2) Energy intensive manufacturers already have a HUGE incentive to reduce their energy use because energy use is a big part of their input costs. This means that it is impossible for any anti-CO2 policy to have any effect on energy use by these manufacturers. If an energy saving technology exists they have already deployed it.

Fact 3) The majority of any rebates by the government would not go to these manufacturers. The majority would go to various special interest groups (e.g. seniors, poor, whatever). The net result is a huge increase in costs for these manufacturers even after any hypothetical rebates.

Fact 4) You claimed that ~10% increase in costs due to a rising dollar resulted in the closing of these plants but you think that similar or larger increase in energy costs would have no effect. You are living in a fantasy land.

I stand by my statement: lefty environmentalists hate industry and will not be happy until all manufacturing is driven out of the country. The fact that they construct elaborate delusions designed to prevent them from seeing the consequences of their pet policies does not change anything.

If you disagree then answer this hypothetical: assume that everything I say is true and anti-CO2 policies will lead to the end of manufacturing in this country. Would you still support "action" or would acknowledge that there are things more important than hypothetical problems that might occur 100 years from now?

If lefty environmentalists hate industry as your saying and want it driven out, how do they propose they generate wealth to maintain their standard of living? Or do we have a case of the kennedy's?

[Wild Bill]

If lefty environmentalists hate industry as your saying and want it driven out, how do they propose they generate wealth to maintain their standard of living? Or do we have a case of the kennedy's?

You have put your finger on the Left's biggest blind spot, BB. In my whole life I have never heard any theory of wealth CREATION from the Left that made sense!

Actually, I've never heard any wealth creation theory at all from the Left! They just seem to assume that some of us are genetically hardwired to create businesses and industry.Those people can be taken for granted to always be there. You can tax them and tie their hands as much as you like and they will never leave, for their genes leave them no choice but to keep doing what they do.

Mind you, the Left always has incredibly detailed ideas about wealth REDISTRIBUTION! They may take the Little Red Hen for granted as someone who has no choice but to keep baking bread but they have a detailed system of how to take her bread and give it to as many other people as possible.

So Lefties never even think about the contradiction about destroying industry and standards of living, BB. Perhaps their brains are genetically hardwired too!

[TimG]

If lefty environmentalists hate industry as your saying and want it driven out, how do they propose they generate wealth to maintain their standard of living?

Whale watching? Of course they don't think. They simply assume that the extra cost of these regulations will come out of the mythical 'fat cats' profits and everything will continue as before. Yet in this thread we have seen the spectacle of someone claiming that a ~10% increase of costs due to a rising dollar is driving industry out yet claiming that a similar or larger increase in energy costs would have no such effect. The inane logic exposed.

[eyeball]

You have put your finger on the Left's biggest blind spot, BB. In my whole life I have never heard any theory of wealth CREATION from the Left that made sense!

Please.

You can have natural ecosystems without a human economy but you cannot have a human economy without a natural ecosystems.

I suppose this is more of a simple grip on reality than a theory of wealth creation but it's no surprise that you'll never be able to formulate the latter without having the former firmly in hand.

As a techie type I would think this should be immediately obvious to you.

[TimG]

You can have natural ecosystems without a human economy but you cannot have a human economy without a natural ecosystems.

The issue is not this self-evident truism. The issue is what needs to be done to keep the natural ecosystems functioning. Environmentalists take the absolutist position that all change is bad. This makes it virtually impossible to reconcile the needs of society with the demands of the environmentalists. What is needed is a more balanced view of nature that does not presume that change is bad.

[eyeball]

Environmentalists take the absolutist position that all change is bad.

Are you absolutely sure?

[blueblood]

Please.

You can have natural ecosystems without a human economy but you cannot have a human economy without a natural ecosystems.

I suppose this is more of a simple grip on reality than a theory of wealth creation but it's no surprise that you'll never be able to formulate the latter without having the former firmly in hand.

As a techie type I would think this should be immediately obvious to you.

Last time I checked, my significantly altered fields seem to feed a lot more people than untouched prairie.

My premise still stands.

[eyeball]

Last time I checked, my significantly altered fields seem to feed a lot more people than untouched prairie.

My premise still stands.

Until it's finally overwhelmed.

Population keeps growing. People need a roof over their head. That means more refrigerators, stoves, furnace motors and all the other stuff.

...and it will never stop!

[blueblood]

Until it's finally overwhelmed.

Apparently it was overwhelmed and the green revolution in agriculture solved that little problem.

Never underestimate our ability to adapt.

[eyeball]

Apparently it was overwhelmed and the green revolution in agriculture solved that little problem.

You mean Bill is wrong, population growth has stopped and consumption of the planet has slowed down?

Never underestimate our ability to adapt.

You mean like the inability to adapt our economy to zero growth?

Okay.